EB comments on Medieval 2

[Xtiaan72]

I am curious what EB players opinions are on Medieval 2 are. ( being the Total War connoisseurs you are!) Have you bought it? Is it holding your interest in it's current form? Are you intrigued with the modding possibilities? I'd like to stress that this thread is not intended to bash CA. Please, only constructive comments.

I bought it but it's not holding my interest in it's current form. I don't find it as addictive as Rome. I can't entirely put my finger on why. This isn't a knock as Rome 1.5 and 1.6 is an entirely better game that it was when it first came out. It might also be that I find the time-frame less compelling than Rome. I'm hoping to come back to it with further patches and I'm looking forward to seeing what the mod community does with it. Until then EB all the way!

Some things I like:

1) The new recruitment system. ( This system would be really awesome in a Rome mod)

2) The princess and merchant characters. They need some work but they definitely add to the game.

3) I think the castle/town option adds to the game

4) The beautiful new models and animations. ( It makes my mouth water to think what some of the EB modders could do with that engine on a Rome mod)

5) I actually like the cavalry changes although it still needs tweaking ( even post-patch)

the things that bother me the most:

1) It is very strange that, most of the time, a very small percentage of a unit
actually fights when they meet another on the field. It looks weird and unrealistic when 10 or 12 guys are fighting on the front line and the rest of the guys are just standing around. Has anyone else noticed that?

2) In addition to that some units are weirdly unresponsive to commands on the battlefield. Also some units stop right before meeting the enemy when they are charging. Very odd to watch a unit charge and then walk the last three yards into the enemy

3) I was really hoping that there would be a giant step forward with the diplomacy AI in the new game. But despite the screen makeover, it just didn't happen. You still end up at war with everyone. The AI still attacks you even if it's in a helpless position. And diplomatic overtures are rejected no matter how sweet they are. The screen is cool though. Hopeful modders or future patches will improve the situation.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Haven't bought it or played it personally.

As for diplomacy, it was pretty clear that the only real changes were in revealing more to you that was happening with diplomacy - not changing it any. That seemed evident a while back when they released screenshots. Still, revealing more about the process is better than leaving it as is with RTW.

[Boyar Son]

I think the game is a great improvement!

but fighting Romans in castles? I wouldnt want to play that if it's hardcoded

Diplomacy is much better, when you win great victories, your opponent recognizes that and would accept a ceasfire. The AI has improved, maybe their dumb in your game because of VH VH settings.

The AI still can be beaten by a human but will still give you spectacular battles( the French falling back to the 2nd wall when I took the 1st).

Another time, I had an army of even numbers against the French, I clumsily repositioned my army and the French saw their opportunity and attacked, I was amazed and cuaght totaly off guard!

I was just angry about the map, Europe is the only place that got attention and CA moved away a little from the Mid East.

[Zaknafien]

In its vanilla form? Unplayable.

the map, units, and AI are utterly ridiculous. On the other hand, map graphics improvements and battlefield enviroments are very nice, as well as city and castle layouts using terrain.


Moddability? Good possibilities. EB2 will be great, once it gets going..

[Boyar Son]

So much negativity. The game has better improvements from RTW.

Also, I don't want to fight Greek and Roman castles! if thats not moddable then thats a serious dent in gameplay and history.

[abou]

It would be cool to see if we could get citadels in EB2: much like Syracuse.

[Boyar Son]

Ok then maybe citidels for some factions. But you can't build them, only repair.

[kalkwerk]

So much negativity. The game has better improvements from RTW.

There are nice battlefield graphics. Thats it. I didnt really believed it as i bought it: that I should like to play vanilla rome so much more. I played for hours trying to convince myself I would actually like it. Tried really hard. Impossible task it turned out. Just the map. The unit icons. The battlefield AI. And the way the new features like merchants (didnt) work. Disappointment of the year next to EU III.

[Ashtart]

I like RTW too. In M2TW, It's so anoying to succeed in conquering far east europa with western faction or other . But it's more realistic with roman, macedonian, seleucid, carthage, egypte...etcetera.

(Glory to EB team )

[delablake]

I LOVE EB 1.1 - the AI is really improved etc.
I HATE MTW II because of - it's utterly ugly map!
Once you are in fighting modus it's really a beauty, especially castles and the environment, but unfortunately you can't fight all the time.
Kingdoms is pretty cool, but the map is a real emetic.
So, I'm happy with 1.1 till EB II will come out of its closet :)))

[The General]

I am curious what EB players opinions are on Medieval 2 are. ( being the Total War connoisseurs you are!) Have you bought it? Is it holding your interest in it's current form? Are you intrigued with the modding possibilities? I'd like to stress that this thread is not intended to bash CA. Please, only constructive comments.

I bought it but it's not holding my interest in it's current form. I don't find it as addictive as Rome. I can't entirely put my finger on why. This isn't a knock as Rome 1.5 and 1.6 is an entirely better game that it was when it first came out. It might also be that I find the time-frame less compelling than Rome. I'm hoping to come back to it with further patches and I'm looking forward to seeing what the mod community does with it. Until then EB all the way!

M2TW = shit

I played the vanilla even less than RTW (which I played for a week). However, Broken Crescent mod is pretty nice, I've been playing that every now and then for a few months now (I play all games pretty irregularly atm, time's a bit stretched, and with the good weather, I prefer friends' company over solitude-gaming. :P)

What makes it shit? Bugs, unhistorical things, campaign (I just didn't like the setting for some reason, even though I liked the MTW one...), and lots of small things.

However, the engine itself is very good, the battles look awesome, and so on. I mean, M2TW's RTW taken a step further - even more soulless, yet with an even better engine, imho. What's awesome is that they made it very moddable, or at least that's what everyone says, which, well, as I say, is awesome. I'm very much waiting for EB2, even though there are certain challenges ahead (pike formations, castles, etc).

1) The new recruitment system. ( This system would be really awesome in a Rome mod)

The recruitment system is cool, to my mind. Not only does it take less time to build up an army (which seems a realistic thing), but it also means that the system can be used to prevent elite-spamming, by the AI and the non-RP'ing/realistically-playing players.

2) The princess and merchant characters. They need some work but they definitely add to the game.

Don't know how the princesses will work, but the merchants should fit in pretty well, I'd think.

3) I think the castle/town option adds to the game

Ugh, nope. I really don't want to see medieval-style castles in the timeframe of EB, and possibly only a few special already-in-place fortifications (Syracuse?) and that more cannot be build. I trust the EB team, tho', so I'm not worried.

4) The beautiful new models and animations. ( It makes my mouth water to think what some of the EB modders could do with that engine on a Rome mod)

*Drools*

5) I actually like the cavalry changes although it still needs tweaking ( even post-patch)

Actual working cavalry charges? Whee. In EB, I dislike how my heavy cavalry seems to always hit the wall when charging, failing to penetrate even skirmisher formations, ie, two units of heavy Iberian lancers fail to rout a unit of cheap skirmishers, and instead end up being the ones getting killed, even when not left to melee after the charge is over...

1) It is very strange that, most of the time, a very small percentage of a unit
actually fights when they meet another on the field. It looks weird and unrealistic when 10 or 12 guys are fighting on the front line and the rest of the guys are just standing around. Has anyone else noticed that?

Ugh, wot?

This is quite realistic, formations tended up to be at least several (5-12) men deep, and sometimes deeper, all the way to being actually squares, like the phalanx 16-by-16-formation. What for?

The push.

Perhaps one of the most famous "pushes" was that of the Thebans at the Battle of Leuctra, where, to quote 'pedia:

In a major break with tradition, Epaminondas massed his cavalry and a fifty-deep column of Theban infantry on his left wing, and sent forward this body against the Spartan right. His shallower and weaker center and right wing columns were drawn up so that they were progressively further to the right and rear of the proceeding column, in the so-called Echelon formation. The footsoldiers engaged, and the Spartans' twelve-deep formation on their right wing could not sustain the heavy impact of their opponents' 50-deep column. A brief pushing match ensued, wherein the Spartans attempted to hold back the gigantic mass of the Thebans and the Sacred Band until they were literally run over by the enormous column. The Spartan right was hurled back with a loss of about 1,000 men, of whom 400 were Spartan citizens, including the king Cleombrotus I.

2) In addition to that some units are weirdly unresponsive to commands on the battlefield. Also some units stop right before meeting the enemy when they are charging. Very odd to watch a unit charge and then walk the last three yards into the enemy

Same happens with RTW and EB, sometimes units, if they're too close to the enemy, don't even charge at all, but rather sloooowly advance towards the enemy in ready-position...

3) I was really hoping that there would be a giant step forward with the diplomacy AI in the new game. But despite the screen makeover, it just didn't happen. You still end up at war with everyone. The AI still attacks you even if it's in a helpless position. And diplomatic overtures are rejected no matter how sweet they are. The screen is cool though. Hopeful modders or future patches will improve the situation.

From what I've heard, the AI of M2TW is much more moddable than RTW's AI, so with some work, it should be possibly to improve the AI.

[ziegenpeter]

I nmy Opinion, you don'nt need the merchants. They are very bad to handle (you always have to watch them, cause armies can move them away from their resources), and you can substitute it by markets and trade rights.

[Captain Trek]

Actually i think SS is less fun than vanilla, and about five times less historically accurate than say, BC. (someone over at SS seems to think that the Hagia Sophia was built in 1200ad)

Um, what are SS and BC?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Stainless Steel and Broken Crescent?

[Aztec Warrior]

MTW2 Good and Bad

Good-

1. Improved graphics, and the end of Total War clone wars

2. Much better diplomacy

3. Better menu system especialy the tech tree

4. easier to recruite armys

Bad-

1. historical mistakes

2. mediocer vocales

3. The advisors (Thank God you can turn them off).

4. many other minor things.


I give MTW2 an B+. It's a vast improvement over RTW and its flaws don't really bug me. I also like the time period despite the Roman one being 10X cooler.